High Court · 2025 on 11 Aug 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. A very short legal question is involved in this case, as to whether disciplinary authority is justified in directing for re-enquiry into the same charges after accepting the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer earlier and issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner-- delinquent employee giving him a copy of the inquiry report, in purported exercise of power under Rule 9 (4) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

3. The facts of the case are, petitioner after was served with the charge-sheet on 21st September, 2017 submitted his reply and participated in inquiry, which resulted in the submission of inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 23rd August, 2018 and which was very much accepted by the disciplinary authority and that was why it issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 17th December, 2018 so as to take an appropriate action in the matter of imposition of penalty on the basis of the findings returned by the inquiry officer.

4. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice on 22nd January, 2019 upon which respondent disciplinary authority proceeded to pass final order on 13th May, 2019 holding that the findings returned in the inquiry by the inquiry officer were not sufficient to hold petitioner guilty of charges and hence passed a final order directing for re-enquiry into the same charges.

5. Taking the legal plea of relevant provisions contained in the

U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, Sri Rahul Mishra argued that the stage on which the disciplinary authority could have disagreed to the findings of the inquiry officer to hold the inquiry afresh either by the same inquiry officer or by the another inquiry officer to be appointed by it, was already over when the disciplinary authority proceed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner in purported exercise of power as contemplated under Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999. It is submitted that after the delinquent employee had submitted reply to the show cause notice which was meant for the purposes of punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent employee, namely the petitioner, on the basis of findings arrived at by the inquiry officer, the only option open for the disciplinary authority was either to impose penalty as it could have considered it to be appropriate considering the findings 2 of 11 returned by the inquiry officer in his report or to exonerate him of the charges and reinstating him in service. According to him once second stage show cause notice got issued, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to have ordered for enquiry de novo into the same charges while reinstating the petitioner in service.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that these are the matters of disciplinary proceedings and even if the disciplinary authority did not disagree initially with the findings returned by the inquiry officer while holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, after issuing a show cause notice if considering the reply of the delinquent employee disciplinary authority considers that the reply carry weight and proper inquiry was not held, such administrative exercise of power to hold de novo enquiry would not stand barred by virtue of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1999.

8. Rival submissions fall for consideration: In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to go into the relevant provisions contained under Rule 9 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Rules 8 & 9 of the Rules, 1999 are reproduced hereunder in their entirety: “8. Submission of Inquiry Report- When the Inquiry is complete, the Inquiry Officer shall submit its inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority alongwith all the records of the inquiry. The inquiry report shall contain a sufficient record of brief facts, the 3 of 11 evidence and statement of the finding on each charge and the reasons thereof. The Inquiry Officer shall not make any recommendation about the penalty.

9. Action on Inquiry Report - The disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, remit the case for re-inquiry to the same or any other Inquiry Officer under intimation to the charged Government servant. The Inquiry Officer shall thereupon proceed to hold the inquiry from such stage as directed by the disciplinary authority, according to the provisions of Rule 7. (2). The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, record its own findings thereon for reasons to be recorded. (3). In case the charges are not proved, the charged Government servant shall be exonerated by the disciplinary authority of the charges and inform him accordingly; (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his findings recorded under sub-rule (2) to the charged Government servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The disciplinary authority shall, having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these rules and communicate the same to the charged Government servant.”

9. For the purpose of this case in hand, Rule, 8, 9(1) and (2) and (4) are relevant and hence the discussion would start upon these rules and hence the examination is required of the relevant Rules 8, 9 (1), (2) and (4) only.

10. Upon reading of Rule 8 of Rules, 1999, I find that after completion of inquiry the inquiry officer is under obligation to submit his inquiry to the disciplinary authority along with all the records of the inquiry. The manner in which the inquiry report is 4 of 11 submitted is also provided under the rules and the inquiry officer is not supposed to make any recommendation qua punishment. Rule 9(1) of Rules, 1999 provides for re-enquiry into the charges by an order to be passed by the disciplinary authority in writing with an intimation to the charged government servant and it is, thereafter de novo enquiry is held by the inquiry officer to be reappointed or by the same inquiry officer.

11. Yet another arrow is added in quiver of the disciplinary authority which is discretionary in a sense that disciplinary authority instead of ordering for an enquiry de novo may on its own record reasons for his disagreement with the inquiry officer and prima facie, hold the petitioner to be guilty of charges to issue show cause notice under Rule 9(4) requiring explanation from such delinquent employee. Rule 9(4) provides for show cause and sufficient opportunity to be afforded for a representation of the delinquent employee in terms of the reasonable opportunity and then having regard to all the relevant records relating to the enquiry and representation of the charged government servant, it shall pass a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties under Rule 3 and communicate the same to the charged government servant.

12. What is interesting to notice in the rules, specifically Rule 9 (3) and 9(4) is that, in Rule 9(3) the charged officer could be exonerated of the charges if the charges are not proved but Rule 5 of 11 9(4) makes it obligatory for disciplinary authority to impose punishment of the nature it considers appropriate.

13. Now, for testing the facts of the case upon these procedures prescribed under the Rules, 1999, I proceed to examine the facts of the case.

14. The inquiry report that was submitted in the matter against the petitioner by the inquiry officer on 23rd August, 2018 and that was taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and it is after evaluating and assessing the inquiry report and the findings returned therein and final assessment made by the inquiry officer that the disciplinary authority proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner as to why an action may not be taken as he was found to be guilty of the charges.

15. The words and expressions as used in the last three lines of second paragraph of the show cause notice would demonstrate that the inquiry officer's report was thoroughly examined by the disciplinary authority. However, in order to appreciate the show cause notice, the entire show cause notice dated 17th December, 2018 is reproduced hereunder highlighting the relevant lines of the second paragraph of the notice: "्ቦी राजेश श቞ኋा(cid:10), सहायक ቞ኋहानि(cid:16)रीቌኌ(cid:18)क नि(cid:16)बंध(cid:16) (नि(cid:16)लंनिबत) संब्ቍ शिशनि(cid:26)र काया(cid:10)लय लख(cid:16)ऊ। 6 of 11 ्ቛारा - ቞ኋहानि(cid:16)री(cid:18)क नि(cid:16)बंध(cid:16) , उ०्ቚ० लख(cid:16)ऊ। सहायक ቞ኋहानि(cid:16)री(cid:18)क नि(cid:16)बंध(cid:16), गाजिजयाबाद के पद पर रहते हुए ्ቦी राकेश उपाध्याय दस्ता(cid:26)ेज लेखक एसोजिसएश(cid:16), उ्ቈर ्ቚदेश, शाखा ቞ኋोदी (cid:16)गर (cid:26) अन्य ्ቛारा जिजलाቌኌधकारी गाजिजयाबाद के स቞ኋ(cid:18) ्ቚस्तुत निकए गए शिशकायती ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:10)(cid:16)ा प्ቔ के ्ቅ቞ኋ ቞ኋें जिजलाቌኌधकारी गाजिजाबाद ्ቛारा शिशकायती प्ቔ ቞ኋें उजि2खिखत तथ्यों की जांच अपर जिजलाቌኌधकारी (नि(cid:26)०/रा०) का नि(cid:16)द8श निदये गये। तदुपरान्त जिजलाቌኌधकारी गाजिजयाबाद ्ቛारा शिशकायती प्ቔ ቞ኋें निकये गये अ(cid:16)ुरोध के दृनि:गत सी०आर०पी०सी० की धारा 93/94 के अन्तग(cid:10)त कूट रቌኌचत दस्ता(cid:26)ेज आनिद के सन्देह हो(cid:16)े पर काय(cid:10)पालक ቞ኋजिजस्ट्रेट/(cid:16)गर ቞ኋजिजस्ट्रेट के सच(cid:10) (cid:26)ारण्ट जारी कर(cid:16)े के नि(cid:16)द8श निदये गये।

2. काय(cid:10)पालक ቞ኋजिजस्ट्रेट ्ቛारा की गयी काय(cid:10)(cid:26)ाही के अ(cid:16)ु्ቅ቞ኋ ቞ኋें (cid:26)रिर्቗ पुखिलस अधी(cid:18)क ज(cid:16)पद गाजिजयाबाद के प्ቔ संख्या अ-1037/17 निद(cid:16)ांक 03.11.2017 के अ(cid:16)ु्ቅ቞ኋ ቞ኋें शास(cid:16) के प्ቔ संख्या -1608/94-1-2017-312(88)/2017 निद(cid:16)ांक 21.9.2017 ्ቛारा आपके नि(cid:26)रू्ቍ उ० ्ቚ० सरकारी से(cid:26)क (अ(cid:16)ुशास(cid:16) ए(cid:26)ं अपील) नि(cid:16)य቞ኋा(cid:26)ली 1999 के नि(cid:26)निहत ्ቚानि(cid:26)धा(cid:16)ों के अंतग(cid:10)त आरोप प्ቔ देते हुए अ(cid:16)ुशासनि(cid:16)क काय(cid:10)(cid:26)ाही संቝኌस््ቕत की गयी और आरोपों की जाँच हेतु प्ቔ संख्या- 1955/94-1-2017-312(88)/2017 निद(cid:16)ांक ्ቛारा ्ቦी , गाजिजयाबाद को जाँच अरनि(cid:26)न्द िሺसह चंदेल अपर ቞ኋहानि(cid:16)री(cid:18)क नि(cid:16)बंध(cid:16) , पቌኌH቞ኋी अቌኌधकारी नि(cid:16)यु्ሹ निकया गया। जाँच अቌኌधकारी अपर ቞ኋहानि(cid:16)री(cid:18)क नि(cid:16)बंध(cid:16) 23.08.2018 (cid:18)े्ቔ , गाजिजयाबाद के प्ቔ संख्या 02 ्ቛारा जांच आख्या उपलब्ध करायी गयी आरोपों ቞ኋें से दो(cid:16)ों आरोप जिस्ቍ पाए गए। , जिजस቞ኋें आपके नि(cid:26)रू्ቍ लगाये गये

21.09.2017 , पቌኌH቞ኋी (cid:18)े्ቔ अ० ቞ኋ० नि(cid:16)० /2018 निद(cid:16)ांक -133/

3. उ० ्ቚ० सरकारी से(cid:26)क (अ(cid:16)ुशास(cid:16) ए(cid:26)ं अपील) नि(cid:16)य቞ኋा(cid:26)ली 1999 के नि(cid:16)य቞ኋ- 9(4) के अंतग(cid:10)त उ्ሹ जाँच आख्या निद(cid:16)ांक 23.08.2018 की छाया्ቚቌኌत संल्ሿ कर ्ቚेनिMत करते हुए यह नि(cid:16)द8शिशत निकया जाता है निक आपके नि(cid:26)रू्ቍ ्ቚ቞ኋाशिOत पाए गए आरोपों के संबंध ቞ኋें अप(cid:16)ा अभ्या(cid:26)ेद(cid:16)/स्प:ीकरO शास(cid:16) को 15 निद(cid:26)स के अन्दर उपलब्ध करा(cid:16)ा सुनि(cid:16)ቌኌHत करे। उ्ሹ नि(cid:16)धा(cid:10)रिरत अ(cid:26)ቌኌध ቞ኋें यनिद अभ्या(cid:26)ेद(cid:16)/स्प:ीकरO ्ቚा्቎ (cid:16)हीं होता है तो आपके नि(cid:26)रू्ቍ गुO-दोM के आधार पर नि(cid:16)O(cid:10)य ले खिलया जाएगा। (लालू) संयु्ሹ सቌኌच(cid:26)।" (Emphasis added)

16. In order to appreciate the act and conduct of the disciplinary authority for examining the same, I find it to be interesting to notice that the inquiry officer has discussed all the materials placed before it in terms of documentary evidence and also there is reply 7 of 11 submitted by the petitioner, namely the delinquent employee and then arriving at the conclusion regarding proof of the charge.

17. Here I would revert back to Rule 8 of the Rules, 1999, which clearly stipulates for an inquiry officer to submit report after completing the enquiry along with the records of the enquiry. The inquiry report shall contain the brief facts, evidence and statement of findings on each of the charges. It is not the case of the respondents that inquiry officer did not submit the records or that the inquiry officer did not submit the report as required under Rule 8 and hence it can safely be presumed that the disciplinary authority while issuing a show cause notice was well aware of the documents as they are placed before it in terms of the requirement under Rule 8 and this could be the only reason why disciplinary authority decided to proceed with issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner, instead of remitting the matter for re-enquiry for want of consideration of documentary evidence afresh. So, the disciplinary authority did not consider Rule 9(1) read with Rule 9 (2) to remit the matter for enquiry de novo. The disciplinary authority also did not consider it appropriate to exonerate the petitioner of the charges under Rule 9(3) by disagreeing with the findings returned by the inquiry officer in his report, meaning thereby once the inquiry report along with all documents and papers on the basis of which domestic inquiry was conducted, was 8 of 11 before the authority and the authority chose to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for taking appropriate action upon such inquiry report for the charges being brought on home, it was not open now for the disciplinary authority to form a view that the inquiry was not conducted fairly or that proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to contest the inquiry and hence there was a lacuna in terms of the procedure followed in the inquiry so as to order an inquiry de novo. The manner and method in which disciplinary authority has proceeded to pass order makes it absolutely bad for want of lawful authority so vested under Rule 9(4).

18. In order to appreciate the findings returned by the disciplinary authority on the testing anvil of Rule 9(4), I reproduce the penultimate paragraph of the order impugned dated 13th May, 2019 passed by the disciplinary authority: “4. जांच अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी जांच आख्या के अ(cid:26)लोक(cid:16) से स्प: है जांच अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा आरोनिपत अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा उस पर लगाये गये आरोपों के संबंध ቞ኋें जिज(cid:16) अशिSलेखीय साቌኚयों की ቞ኋांग की गयी है, उन्हें ቞ኋा० उ्ሴ न्यायालय के आदेशों के बा(cid:26)जूद Sी (cid:16) तो उपलब्ध कराया गया है (cid:16) ही निकसी साቌኚय को पेश निकये जा(cid:16)े हेतु निकसी अቌኌधकारी/काया(cid:10)लय से कोई प्ቔाचार ही निकया गया है? इसके नि(cid:26)परिरत जांच अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा आरोप अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा उठाये गये निबन्दुओं (जो ज(cid:16)पद गाजिजयाबाद ቞ኋें स्टाम्प अप(cid:26)ंच(cid:16) के गम्Sीर ्ቚकरOों से संबंቌኌधत हो(cid:16)े के सा्ቕ-सा्ቕ अशिSलेखीय साቌኚयों से स቞ኋቕኌ्ቕत Sी है। ) का कोई परी(cid:18)O ्ቚस्तुत (cid:16)हीं निकया गया है, जबनिक उ०्ቚ० नि(cid:26)Sागीय जांच (साቌኌ(cid:18)यों को हाजिजर हो(cid:16)े और दस्ता(cid:26)ेज पेश कर(cid:16)े के खिलए बाध्य कर(cid:16)ा) अቌኌधनि(cid:16)य቞ኋ 1976 के ्ቚस्तर-04 ቞ኋें उ्ሹ अቌኌधकारी जांच अቌኌधकारी को ्ቚद्ቈ है। जांच अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा के(cid:26)ल उ(cid:16) दस्ता(cid:26)ेज लेखकों/उप नि(cid:16)बन्धकों के ቞ኋौखिखक बया(cid:16)ों (जो कदाቌኌचत अशिSलेखीय साቌኚयों से स቞ኋቕኌ्ቕत (cid:16)हीं है) के आधार पर ही, निब(cid:16)ा आरोनिपत अቌኌधकारी को सु(cid:16)(cid:26)ाई का पया(cid:10)्቎ अ(cid:26)सर निदये हुए जांच की काय(cid:10)(cid:26)ाही सम्प्ቐ करते हुए जांच आख्या शास(cid:16) 9 of 11 को उपलब्ध करायी गयी है। यहां यह निबन्दु नि(cid:26)शेM रूप से दृ:व्य है निक उ्ሹ दस्ता(cid:26)ेज लेखक/उप नि(cid:16)बन्धकों के नि(cid:26)रू्ቍ आरोनिपत अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा स्टाम्प अप(cid:26)ंच(cid:16) के गम्Sीर ्ቚकरOों ቞ኋें पू(cid:26)(cid:10) ቞ኋें काय(cid:10)(cid:26)ाही अ्ቕ(cid:26)ा काय(cid:10)(cid:26)ाही की संस्तुቌኌत की गयी है। जांच अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा आरोनिपत अቌኌधकारी ्ቛारा अप(cid:16)े बचा(cid:26) ቞ኋें उठाये गये निबन्दुओं, जो अशिSलेखों से स቞ኋቕኌ्ቕत Sी है, को निब(cid:16)ा निकसी अशिSलेखीय ्ቚ቞ኋाO/तथ्यात्቞ኋक नि(cid:26)्ቨेMO/ताቅኌकक व्याख्या के एक जिसरे से अस्(cid:26)ीकार निकया गया ्ቚतीत होता है। उ्ሹ (cid:26)स्तुቝኌस््ቕቌኌत के दृनि:गत जांच अቌኌधकारी की जांच आख्या ቞ኋ(cid:16)गढ़न्त, एक-प(cid:18)ीय, दूनिMत त्ቕा अशिSलेखों से स቞ኋቕኌ्ቕत (cid:16) हो(cid:16)े के कारO उ०्ቚ० सरकारी से(cid:26)क अ(cid:16)ुशास(cid:16) ए(cid:26)ं अपील नि(cid:16)य቞ኋा(cid:26)ली 1999 के ्ቚानि(cid:26)धा(cid:16)ों के ्ቚቌኌतकूल हो(cid:16)े के कारO अस्(cid:26)ीकाय(cid:10) है।

19. Reading the above and applying the law qua the rules in question as discussed above, it is absolutely clear that the order is bad in law. The disciplinary authority was to pass order of punishment may be minor in nature on the basis of the inquiry report and in the event at the stage of final analysis and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, it found that findings returned in inquiry were unsustainable, it was to hold that the petitioner could not have been held guilty of the charges and should have exonerated him from the charges.

20. It is a case where the procedure prescribed for, has not been followed inasmuch as the due application of mind is also found to be lacking. In the case of Tata Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628 and Krishna Rai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others v. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others (2022) 8 SCC 713, it has been held that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner then that things has to be done in that manner along, which I found 10 of 11 to be fully applicable to the present case to warrant interference in the matter to set aside the order impugned.

21. I am also informed at this stage of an order passed on 13th May, 2019 by which petitioner was subjected to enquiry and he being a charged officer not being in a bargaining position, had to submit himself to the domestic inquiry.

22. In my considered view, it is a settled legal position that if an order is held bad, all the other consequential actions are also to be held bad and have to be struck down.

23. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13th May, 2019 passed by the disciplinary authority insofar as it directs for inquiry de novo is hereby quashed and the order of re-enquiry dated 11th September, 2019 also stands quashed. The subsequent actions of domestic inquiry if are taken upon such report submitted also automatically stand quashed.

24. Petitioner has already been reinstated and, therefore he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Atmesh ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 11 of 11